Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Olive trees and candlesticks doesn't answer dead bodies in a street, turning symbolically into the church "sorry", if that's your only response it fails

It's all symbolic, but you insist on trying to interpret the most highly symbolic book in the Bible as literally as you can. Your approach to interpreting the book of Revelation is ridiculous. Just keep believing the nonsense you want to believe since that is what you will do no matter what I say.

 

[Truth7t7]

It's all symbolic, but you insist on trying to interpret the most highly symbolic book in the Bible as literally as you can. Your approach to interpreting the book of Revelation is ridiculous. Just keep believing the nonsense you want to believe since that is what you will do no matter what I say.

You didn't answer with a explanation, why are you running away from a detailed response?

Once Again:

Detailed Info:

Fact is its all future literal, no other explanation, they will have literal bodies that die, a literal street, a literal world tormented and in celebration exchanging literal gifts, literal bodies raised standing on literal physical feet as a literal world watches

Please give your explanation on the "Detailed" info given above in bold red, and it's "Symbolic Representation" waiting?

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You didn't answer with a explanation, why are you running away from a detailed response?

I have given many details regarding my understanding of the two witnesses. I don't need to detail every word in the chapter. Get serious. Not every word has a symbolic equivalent. You obviously don't understand how symbolism works. What is being symbolized is the heavy persecution of the church in the time before Christ returns.

 

[Truth7t7]

What is being symbolized is the heavy persecution of the church in the time before Christ returns.

You didn't answer above with a explanation to the bold red below, why are you running away from a detailed response?

Once Again:

Detailed Info:

Fact is its all future literal, no other explanation, they will have literal bodies that die, a literal street, a literal world tormented and in celebration exchanging literal gifts, literal bodies raised standing on literal physical feet as a literal world watches

Please give your explanation on the "Detailed" info given above in bold red, and it's "Symbolic Representation" waiting?

Jesus Is The Lord

Revelation 11:7-12KJV
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You didn't answer above with a explanation to the bold red below, why are you running away from a detailed response?

I don't run away from anything. Should I accuse you of running away when you have no explanation for why the two witnesses are called two candlesticks? Any time I ask you that you refer to a passage that speaks of two olive trees and not two candlesticks. What a waste of time it is trying to discuss these things with you. I'm not wasting any more time. I'm done. You won't even do what you expect me to do. You are completely unreasonable. I have better things to do than to deal with a completely unreasonable person like you.

 

[ewq1938]

Olive trees and candlesticks doesn't answer dead bodies in a street, turning symbolically into the church "sorry", if that's your only response it fails

You're not going to take described dead bodies in a street and claim it represents the church

Just as Tribulationsigns tried to claim the dead bodies in the street symbolically represented the Church who lost its testimony and this represented dead bodies in the street "Laughable"!

The book of Revelation has literal and symbolic in it, you're not going to control my interpretation, it's literal and symbolic, context is everything

Rev Chap 11 You take dead bodies, a street, a world watching in celebration exchanging gifts because the witnesses tormented them "Plagues", bodies being raised from the dead standing on their feet, and you want to simply disregard all this detail with it represents (The Church) ain't gonna happen, at least Tribsigns gave it a try in his response to explain the detail, and his explanation is way out in left field and laughable

Plus if that is supposed to be the rapture of the church, why does it happen before the Amill second coming?

Detailed Info:

Fact is its all future literal, no other explanation, they will have literal bodies that die, a literal street, a literal world tormented and in celebration exchanging literal gifts, literal bodies raised standing on literal physical feet as a literal world watches

Symbolism is fairly easy to spot because it is exaggerated and usually explained but symbolism is rarely, if at all, expressed in simple and plain language.

 

[Truth7t7]

I don't run away from anything. Should I accuse you of running away when you have no explanation for why the two witnesses are called two candlesticks? Any time I ask you that you refer to a passage that speaks of two olive trees and not two candlesticks. What a waste of time it is trying to discuss these things with you. I'm not wasting any more time. I'm done. You won't even do what you expect me to do. You are completely unreasonable. I have better things to do than to deal with a completely unreasonable person like you.

Once Again:

I asked you a question regarding your posting please respond, and stop using the excuse and diversion that I need to respond to your post, as I am responding with a question that your running from, waiting?

Quote Spiritual Israelite Post #8:

Why would people be required to go up to Jerusalem to worship in light of what Jesus said here...

Once Again:

"Please interpret the time and place Zechariah 14:16 will or has taken place?"

Please explain the words, (To Keep The Feast Of Tabernacles), what, when, and where?

Zechariah 14:16KJV
16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

 

[claninja]

I'm not asking if you think the thousand years is literal or symbolic. I'm asking how it can symbolically refer to a time period much shorter than a literal thousand years. What exactly is your understanding of the thousand years? What time period do you think it represents?

According to revelation, the 1000 years represents a time period AFTER Christ comes to destroy the beast in the lake of fire, where the dead, martyred saints are then raised up to reign with Him.

The thousand years could be symbolic or literal. Unfortunately the author doesn’t tell us.

You're claiming that Revelation was wrong about the timing of events?

Correct. Revelation claims the events in its book were going to happen “quickly/soon” and that the “time was near”. Revelation instructs John not seal the vision for the time is near. Revelation claims the church in Philadelphia would be kept from a world wide hour of trial about to come upon the whole earth.

Do you agree with Revelation’s claims that those things happened imminently to 95ad? Or do you need to negotiate with the text, coming up with a workaround because those events didn’t happen?

How are you coming to that conclusion? The thousand years relates to the time when Jesus reigns with His followers being priests of God and of Christ. According to Revelation 1:5-6, Jesus was already reigning and His followers were already made priests before the time the book was written.

“You are focusing too much on the similarities while ignoring the differences”.

I’ll just use your own argument against you. Just because you recognize those similarities doesn’t account for the differences. You are not taking the whole picture into account. Revelation claims the kingdom of priests “will reign”. It’s future tense. It’s after they are resurrected.

According to revelation’s chronology, the millennium happens after the beast is thrown in the lake of fire at christs coming in chapter 19, where the martyrs are resurrected to reign with Christ.

I say resurrected because both thayers lexicon and the BDAG lexicon define “the lived” in revelation 20:4 as recovering to physical life from physical death, NOT spiritual.

THAYER’S Lexicon.
to be no longer dead, to recover life, be restored to life: Matthew 9:18; Acts 9:41; so of Jesus risen from the dead, Mark 16:11; Luke 24:5, 23; Acts 1:3; Acts 25:19; Romans 6:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; opposed to νεκρός, Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; ἔζησεν came to life, lived again, Romans 14:9 G L T Tr WH(opposed to ἀπέθανε); Revelation 13:14; Revelation 20:4, 5

BDAG Lexicon
β of dead persons who return to life become alive again: of humans in general (3 Km 17:23) Mt 9:18; Ac 9:41; 20:12; Rv 20:4, 5; AcPl Ha 11, 7. Of Jesus Mk 16:11; Lk 24:5, 23; Ac 1:3; 25:19; Ro 14:9a; 2 Cor 13:4a; Rv 1:18b; 2:8 (Just., D. 69, 6 νεκροὺς … ζῆν ποιήσας).

Symbolic for God's time of 1 day? What do you mean by that exactly?

One day as a thousand years, a thousand years as day.

What age? Where does scripture teach that any age ended in 70 AD?

“The ends of the ages have come upon us”

“This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened”

“The end of all things has drawn near”

“In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay.”

“The coming of the Lord is at hand”

Jesus didn't come in 70 AD

Right, that’s the point I was making about revelation. Revelation demonstrates a late first century response to a parousia that didn’t occur “immediately” after the destruction of Jerusalem. It spiritualizes in order to move the goal posts back. That’s my theory.

I can't make any sense of your understanding of Revelation. Oh well. Moving on....

Simply put, my theory is that if written in 95ad, Revelation moves the goal posts farther back by spiritualizing earlier NT events because it believes the coming of Christ was imminent to its time frame and not 70ad.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

According to revelation, the 1000 years represents a time period AFTER Christ comes to destroy the beast in the lake of fire, where the dead, martyred saints are then raised up to reign with Him.

The thousand years represents a time when Jesus reigns and His followers are considered priests of God and of Christ. Jesus began reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22) and His followers have been priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6). So, like Premils, you are mistaken to think that what is described at the beginning of Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19.

The thousand years could be symbolic or literal. Unfortunately the author doesn’t tell us.

So, you have no opinion on that at all? When did Jesus begin to reign and when were His followers first considered to be priests in His kingdom? That tells us when the thousand years began.

Correct. Revelation claims the events in its book were going to happen “quickly/soon” and that the “time was near”.

Not all of the events. Again, you seem to forget about Revelation 1:19. The book contains text regarding the past, present and future in relation to when the book was written. When it talks about things happening soon or that the time was near, it's not talking about literally everything written in the book. Otherwise, Revelation 1:19 would not be true.

Revelation instructs John not seal the vision for the time is near. Revelation claims the church in Philadelphia would be kept from a world wide hour of trial about to come upon the whole earth.

Do you agree with Revelation’s claims that those things happened imminently to 95ad? Or do you need to negotiate with the text, coming up with a workaround because those events didn’t happen?

Unlike yourself, I keep the rest of scripture in mind when I interpret the book of Revelation. Revelation 19 describes Christ's return. That has not yet happened. What worldwide hour of trial happened in the past? If you can't tell me, then I have no reason to take what you say about this seriously. Sometimes in scripture it talks about things being near or soon in the sense that they are certain to occur and not that they necessarily will literally happen soon. But, you obviously have no understanding of that concept.

“You are focusing too much on the similarities while ignoring the differences”.

I’ll just use your own argument against you. Just because you recognize those similarities doesn’t account for the differences. You are not taking the whole picture into account. Revelation claims the kingdom of priests “will reign”. It’s future tense. It’s after they are resurrected.

Since not all believers who would reign were even alive yet at the time, that's why it says "will reign". It does not mean the kingdom of priests who were alive at the time were not yet reigning. It's worded as "will reign" because it's not just including believers who were alive at the time. The following passage makes it very clear that Jesus was reigning with His followers as priests in His kingdom at the time John wrote the book.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

This says Jesus was "the ruler over the kings of the earth" at the time the book was written and that He had made believers "kings and priests to His God and Father" before that time. So, apply that to what is written in Revelation 20 and you should see that the description of Jesus reigning with His followers being priests is a current reality that began long ago after His resurrection. Not after their resurrection. I'm surprised how much you sound like a Premil sometimes.

According to revelation’s chronology, the millennium happens after the beast is thrown in the lake of fire at christs coming in chapter 19, where the martyrs are resurrected to reign with Christ.

I completely disagree. Again, you are sounding like a Premil. You don't understand how the book of Revelation is formatted. Do you think it's arranged chronologically from beginning to end? If so, good luck trying to support that view with what is written in Revelation 11 and 12.

I say resurrected because both thayers lexicon and the BDAG lexicon define “the lived” in revelation 20:4 as recovering to physical life from physical death, NOT spiritual.

That's false. You put too much trust in those opinions, which is all they are. According to scripture, the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20,23). So, having part in the first resurrection has nothing to do with being bodily resurrected, but rather has to do with spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection, which all believers do when they spiritually go from being dead in sins to alive in Christ (Eph 1:4-6, Romans 6:9-11, Col 2:12-13).

Read Revelation 20:6. Do you think someone needs to be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to have no power over them? Based on what you're telling me here about your understanding of the first resurrection, that would have to be the case. Yet, that is not the case. Does the second death have power over you or any other Christian right now? No, right? Does the second death have power over the souls of the dead in Christ right now? No, right? So, what does that tell you about what it means to have part in the first resurrection?

One day as a thousand years, a thousand years as day.

Do you know what that means? In 2 Peter 3:8-9 it relates to the fact that time has no affect on the Lord. One day or a thousand years make no difference to Him because He created time and exists outside of time. It doesn't say one say equals one thousand year and one thousand years equals a day. No, it says one day is as as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. That means there's no difference between a day and a thousand years to the Lord. This has nothing to do with what the thousand years in Revelation represents.

“The ends of the ages have come upon us”

What ages? In that verse ages should be understood as referring to generations. Not the end of the temporal age that Jesus talked about in Luke 20:34-36 during which people get married and die which He contrasted with the age to come during which people will not get married or die.

“This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened”

You have no understanding of what that means. It's talking about the generation who would say all these things happen. It will not pass away until those things happen first. That all relates to things that happen before Jesus returns. He hasn't returned yet. Until you understand that, you are not going to understand much.

“The end of all things has drawn near”

“In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay.”

“The coming of the Lord is at hand”

Those speak to the certainty of Christ's return at which all things, as we know them, will end. As described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. That clearly has not yet happened. Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3 about how it may seem like a long time for Jesus to return to some, but to the Lord it's not long because to Him a day is no different than a thousand years. So, Peter was saying if it took Him a thousand years or longer to return then His return was still soon and near to Him. That's the context of verses like those. And they speak to the certainty of His future coming as well. When you take those literally as if they are saying that Jesus was literally coming some time soon at that point it leads to all kinds of confusion, false interpretations and contradictions. I hope some day you will realize this.

Right, that’s the point I was making about revelation. Revelation demonstrates a late first century response to a parousia that didn’t occur “immediately” after the destruction of Jerusalem. It spiritualizes in order to move the goal posts back. That’s my theory.

Move the goal posts back? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that some scripture is telling lies that John had to correct in the book of Revelation? I can't comprehend what you're saying at all.

Simply put, my theory is that if written in 95ad, Revelation moves the goal posts farther back by spiritualizing earlier NT events because it believes the coming of Christ was imminent to its time frame and not 70ad.

Are you suggesting that John taught something different in Revelation than is taught elsewhere in the NT? That can't be. That would bring everything written in the rest of the NT into question.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Plus if that is supposed to be the rapture of the church, why does it happen before the Amill second coming?

It doesn't happen before the Amill second coming. Please don't try to ever speak for Amill. Most Premills, including you, have very little understanding of Amill.

Symbolism is fairly easy to spot because it is exaggerated and usually explained but symbolism is rarely, if at all, expressed in simple and plain language.

What does this even mean? I could consider some descriptions of the beast and its activities to be written in simple and plain language but that doesn't make the beast a literal beast.

 

[claninja]

The thousand years represents a time when Jesus reigns and His followers are considered priests of God and of Christ. Jesus began reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22) and His followers have been priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6). So, like Premils, you are mistaken to think that what is described at the beginning of Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19.

I completely disagree. Again, you are sounding like a Premil. You don't understand how the book of Revelation is formatted. Do you think it's arranged chronologically from beginning to end? If so, good luck trying to support that view with what is written in Revelation 11 and 12.

Unlike yourself, I keep the rest of scripture in mind when I interpret the book of Revelation. Revelation 19 describes Christ's return. That has not yet happened. What worldwide hour of trial happened in the past? If you can't tell me, then I have no reason to take what you say about this seriously. Sometimes in scripture it talks about things being near or soon in the sense that they are certain to occur and not that they necessarily will literally happen soon. But, you obviously have no understanding of that concept.

You seem to be using your external framework to determine that Revelation chapter 20 is a recapitulation, instead of chronological to chapter 19. The problem is that there is nothing internal, whether grammatical or contextual, to demonstrate that revelation 20 is solely a recapitulation.

Revelation 20:10 states, "where the beast and false prophet are." This points directly back to Revelation 19:20, where the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. There is nothing in the text to suggest that John is beginning a new account of the same events or resetting the chronological sequence. Rather, the language assumes that the beast and false prophet are already in the lake of fire when Satan is finally thrown in.

If Revelation 20:1 begins a recapitulation of the events already described in chapters 19, we would expect some indication that John is returning to an earlier point in the narrative. Instead, Revelation 20:10 reads naturally as a continuation of the preceding judgment: the beast and false prophet have already been judged, and Satan now joins them. The reference to where they "are" reinforces the sequential relationship between these events rather than suggesting a chronological reset.

Why wouldn't the phrase "where the beast and the false prophet are", in Revelation 20:10, contextually refer to a continuity of Revelation 19:20, where they HAD BEEN thrown into the lake of fire?

**example for what I mean: “If the police chief says, ‘The two suspects are in prison,’ and then says, ‘The man who ordered the crime was sent to the prison where the two suspects are,’ wouldn't you naturally understand that as referring to the same prison and the same previously established event? Why would you assume he's restarting the story?”

So, you have no opinion on that at all? When did Jesus begin to reign and when were His followers first considered to be priests in His kingdom? That tells us when the thousand years began.

Since not all believers who would reign were even alive yet at the time, that's why it says "will reign". It does not mean the kingdom of priests who were alive at the time were not yet reigning. It's worded as "will reign" because it's not just including believers who were alive at the time. The following passage makes it very clear that Jesus was reigning with His followers as priests in His kingdom at the time John wrote the book.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

This says Jesus was "the ruler over the kings of the earth" at the time the book was written and that He had made believers "kings and priests to His God and Father" before that time. So, apply that to what is written in Revelation 20 and you should see that the description of Jesus reigning with His followers being priests is a current reality that began long ago after His resurrection. Not after their resurrection. I'm surprised how much you sound like a Premil sometimes.


That's false. You put too much trust in those opinions, which is all they are. According to scripture, the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20,23). So, having part in the first resurrection has nothing to do with being bodily resurrected, but rather has to do with spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection, which all believers do when they spiritually go from being dead in sins to alive in Christ (Eph 1:4-6, Romans 6:9-11, Col 2:12-13).

Read Revelation 20:6. Do you think someone needs to be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to have no power over them? Based on what you're telling me here about your understanding of the first resurrection, that would have to be the case. Yet, that is not the case. Does the second death have power over you or any other Christian right now? No, right? Does the second death have power over the souls of the dead in Christ right now? No, right? So, what does that tell you about what it means to have part in the first resurrection?

The irony is that you rely on these "opinions" just as much as I do, since you read the Bible in English and not in the original language. The opinions of scholars and Greek experts for translation seem to only matter when they agree with your framework. When they disagree with your framework, you label them as "man's opinions", despite you providing no other evidence to back up your claims.

It is a fact, not false, that the BDAG lexicon and Thayer's lexicon define "they lived" in revelation 20:4,5 as resurrection from physical dead to physical life.

Your other "philosophical" attempts to explain away definitions are meaningless if you can't provide hard lexical evidence that words can mean what you are claiming they mean in that context.

Do you know what that means? In 2 Peter 3:8-9 it relates to the fact that time has no affect on the Lord. One day or a thousand years make no difference to Him because He created time and exists outside of time. It doesn't say one say equals one thousand year and one thousand years equals a day.

It was joke. I think using 2 Peter 3:8-9 to undermine or warp any time statements is a poor argument.

What ages? In that verse ages should be understood as referring to generations. Not the end of the temporal age that Jesus talked about in Luke 20:34-36 during which people get married and die which He contrasted with the age to come during which people will not get married or die.

You have no understanding of what that means. It's talking about the generation who would say all these things happen. It will not pass away until those things happen first. That all relates to things that happen before Jesus returns. He hasn't returned yet. Until you understand that, you are not going to understand much.


Those speak to the certainty of Christ's return at which all things, as we know them, will end. As described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. That clearly has not yet happened. Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3 about how it may seem like a long time for Jesus to return to some, but to the Lord it's not long because to Him a day is no different than a thousand years. So, Peter was saying if it took Him a thousand years or longer to return then His return was still soon and near to Him. That's the context of verses like those. And they speak to the certainty of His future coming as well. When you take those literally as if they are saying that Jesus was literally coming some time soon at that point it leads to all kinds of confusion, false interpretations and contradictions. I hope some day you will realize this.

Right, this is your negotiation with the text. Your work around is to claim the clear imminent phrases are not actually imminent in order to justify your framework.

Move the goal posts back? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that some scripture is telling lies that John had to correct in the book of Revelation? I can't comprehend what you're saying at all.

Are you suggesting that John taught something different in Revelation than is taught elsewhere in the NT? That can't be. That would bring everything written in the rest of the NT into question.

I can accept the teachings of the Gospels and epistles without necessarily placing the same weight on Revelation. That's hardly unprecedented as much of the early church questioned Revelation's authority, and its acceptance was far from universal. My point is that questioning Revelation doesn't require me to discard the rest of the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles can stand on their own merits without requiring me to reconcile every distinctive claim or symbolic framework introduced in John's visions, which frankly don't often fit together.

And yes, I think there are failed predictions in Revelation, unless you can tell me what historical event was "world wide" and "an hour of trial on the whole earth" that the church of philadelphia was kept from around 95ad?

 

[soberxp]

I know this is a controversial matter. I know that many here are now going to call it pathetic, but honestly after I read the New Testament - and am simply objective - it is like the New Testament wants to tell me that Jesus returned around 70 AD. That the Beast was Rome and Babylon was Jerusalem. But somehow this is also confusing.

No.
The beast was not Rome.
The beast always is the world.our world.

From before Jesus Christ was crucified, Rome had already begun to unify that region. If the time for spreading the Bible was in a war-torn area, I dare not imagine how many people could have walked alive all the way to Rome—especially when there were only twelve disciples.

From God’s perspective, He knows what time is suitable and what time is not. But you cannot compare Rome to a beast, because it is this world that is the beast.

As for the claim that Jesus Christ once returned—that was not a return; that was leading believers. He is the good Shepherd, and the Shepherd leads His flock. The flock has always existed, at any time and in any place. You cannot affirm that He has returned just because of His leading. That is not the same thing as the situation of His return as described in the Bible.

 

[Davidpt]

Not all of the events. Again, you seem to forget about Revelation 1:19. The book contains text regarding the past, present and future in relation to when the book was written. When it talks about things happening soon or that the time was near, it's not talking about literally everything written in the book. Otherwise, Revelation 1:19 would not be true.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Ironically, the very same verse you are using is your own worst enemy, so to speak. In Revelation 19, if satan and humans were also cast into the LOF when the beast and false prophet are, then why didn't John do this in Revelation 19--- Write the things which thou see which shall be hereafter? So be sure to move the goalpost concerning Revelation 1:19 when it comes to your position, but then be sure to use it to argue against someone else's position.

So why didn't John write that in ch 19 if he indeed saw satan and humans getting cast into the LOF during when the beast and fp are cast into it?

By linking the command of Revelation 1:19 directly to the text of Revelation 19, you create a textual dilemma that the Amil position cannot answer with the text in ch 19.



John is given a strict, threefold command------Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter

In Revelation 19, John clearly writes what he sees. Does he not?

He sees the beast and the false prophet captured and cast alive into the LOF (Rev 19:20). Therefore, he is clearly doing what he was commanded to do in Revelation 1:19--Write the things which thou see which shall be hereafter. But you have him failing to do that if you are correct about the fate of satan and humans during the fate of the beast and false prophet.

He does not see satan cast in there yet, instead, he sees the rest of the rebellious human army killed with the sword (Rev 19:21). Where does verse 21 ever say any of them then rose from the dead at that time, were judged then sentenced, then cast into the LOF?

If Amil is correct, and Revelation 19 is the final consumption of all wickedness at the second coming, then John failed his 1:19 mandate. He omitted the single most important cosmic entity (satan) and the final judgment of humanity from the very scene where he claims to be recording what he saw.


The text itself clearly refutes the idea that everyone went into the LOF at the same time. When satan is finally thrown into the LOF in Revelation 20:10, the Greek text uses a specific present/perfect nuance to describe the status of the first two occupants----where the beast and the false prophet are. The text acknowledges a sequence.


To maintain your view, Amil must look at the silence of Revelation 19 regarding satan's final doom and insert it there anyway. Not to mention, satan is not mentioned in Revelation 19 one single time to begin with. Maybe that's why John never wrote in ch 19 that he also saw satan getting cast into the LOF when the beast and false prophet are.

Imagine that, John didn't disobey any of the commandments in Revelation 1:19 after all, in Revelation 19. He did exactly as commanded, he only wrote what he saw not what he didn't see.

Exegesis = concluding that satan isn't thrown into the LOF in Ch 19 because the text says he is bound in Chapter 20 and that John did not see him cast into the LOF in ch 19.

Eisegesis = insisting that satan is cast into the LOF in Chapter 19 when John did not record in ch 19 that he saw satan cast into the LOF at that time.


If John was commanded to write what he saw, and he did not see satan or human judgment in the Ch 19 LOF scene, you cannot invent it for him. Eisegesis = you are reading your systematic theology into the text rather than drawing it out of the text. Eisegesis = you have John disobeying one of the commands in Revelation 1:19 if he saw both satan and humans cast into the LOF at that time but neglected to write what he saw.

BTW, Amils, like you, do the same with Daniel 7:9-11 as well. You all insist the GWTJ is in view, except there is zero mention of any humans being given to the burning flame when the beast is, let alone satan. And besides, if the GWTJ is in view in Daniel 7:9-11, then point out in Revelation 20:12-15 where you see the beast standing among the dead.

Amil, like the position you hold, fits the definition of eisegesis not exegesis. But you want to pretend like some of the rest of us haven't noticed.

 

[SeekTruth]

Jerusalem was Babylon because she was the center of idolatry. Jerusalem was Sodom because she was the center of fornication. Jerusalem was Egypt because she was the center of slavery. And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her

 

[SeekTruth]

Jerusalem was Babylon because she was the center of idolatry. Jerusalem was Sodom because she was the center of fornication. Jerusalem was Egypt because she was the center of slavery. And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. She is no more. The city that once ruled the world is no more! And Jesus was there in 70 AD, he was there! He was on the clouds and looked down to them and said to Jerusalem: "40 years ago you forced the Beast (Roman) to kill me, now I will force the Beast to kill you." what goes around comes around! Revenge is sweet!!!!

 

[ewq1938]

Jerusalem was Babylon because she was the center of idolatry.

Rome was more of the center for that actuially. Jerusalem is not Babylon in the book of Rev.

 

[ewq1938]

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. She is no more.

Jerusalem has existed for centuries and still exists but when Babylon is destroyed, it's gone forever.

 

[SeekTruth]

Rome was more of the center for that actuially. Jerusalem is not Babylon in the book of Rev.

Ezekiel 5:4-8
Take again some of them and throw them into the fire and burn them in the fire; from it a fire will spread to all the house of Israel. Thus says Lord Yahweh, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands all around her. But she has rebelled against My judgments more wickedly than the nations and against My statutes more than the lands which are all around her; for they have rejected My judgments and have not walked in My statutes.’ Therefore, thus says Lord Yahweh, ‘Because you have more turmoil than the nations which are all around you and have not walked in My statutes, nor done My judgments, nor done the judgments of the nations which are all around you,’ therefore, thus says Lord Yahweh, ‘Behold, I, even I, am against you, and I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations.

 

[SeekTruth]

Jerusalem has existed for centuries and still exists but when Babylon is destroyed, it's gone forever.

Jerusalem was a whore. In fact she was the mother of whores. In 30 AD she murdered her husband and she became a widow. In 30 AD the judge gave her death penalty. In 70 AD she was executed by fire.

 

[Davidpt]

Jerusalem was Babylon because she was the center of idolatry. Jerusalem was Sodom because she was the center of fornication. Jerusalem was Egypt because she was the center of slavery. And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her

You were submitting a convincing argument until you ruined it with this part--And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her. If she has been destroyed 2K years ago why is she still here 2K years later then?